History of Mediaeval Hindu India (being a History of India from 600 to 1200 A.D.) v2.c30.23

v2.c30.23

controversy at page 145 of this volume and stated at the end of the para that we may accept the story of Dantidurga being uprooted by Kṛiṣhṇa though given in one grant only. Mr. Sukthankar in publishing this new inscription of Kṛiṣhṇa I, dated śaka 694 or A. D. 772 says that as Kṛiṣhṇa himself says nothing wrong about Dantidurga, the story of his getting into evil ways and his eventual supression may be disbelieved. We think after looking into the several documents that the story may be accepted with some variation. The Baroda grant which is dated 812 A. D. i. e., only 40 years later cannot be set aside altogether. There can be no reason why a false statement should have been made so shortly after Kṛiṣhṇa. Any statement in an inscription should be given its due weight unless we can show how an erroneous idea might have arisen. Now this account may very easily have been forgotten in later times or may have been omitted from a sense of propriety. The Kardā grant which is dated 972 A.D. may have made, after 200 years, the mistaken statement that Dantidurga left no issue since his uncle Kṛiṣhṇa succeeded him and we may believe that Dantidurga left behind him a son who was ill-behaved and who consequently was set aside by his powerful uncle Kṛiṣhṇa. The words in the Baroda grant are wide enough to admit this possibility; यो वंश्यसन्मूल्य विभागभाजं राज्यं स्वयं गोत्रहिताय चक्रे mentions only a Vamśya or a person to whom inheritance goes and may include a son of Dantidurga. This indeed lays down a good maxim viz: that any rightful heir, if he is unfit to govern by his licentious behaviour should be set aside by the next heir for the benefit of the family (गोत्रहित). We see that this was done at the very next step; for we are told that Kṛiṣhṇa's elder son Govinda was immersed in sensual pleasures and was therefore set aside by his younger brother Dhruva (Deoli grant). In fact a battle was fought between them according to the Paiṭhan grant (Ep. Ind. III. p. 167) which states that Dhruva defeated his brother Govinda though assisted by Kāñchi, Gaṅga, Veṅgi and Mālava. This also shows that outsiders are ready enough to interfere in internecine quarrels; but it also shows that the Rajputs who came to the front about this period were men of strong moral fibre and the people also sided with virile and well-conducted claimants. It may, in short, be accepted that though Dantidurga was not himself ill-behaved nor was himself uprooted by Kṛiṣhṇa, his son most probably was from the Baroda grant.*